Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
July 24, 2014

More Rubio Climate Change Skepticism

Jonathan Cohn addresses the conservative argument that efforts to reduce carbon emissions are “futile, because we produce only a portion of the world’s greenhouse gasesand the other big polluters aren’t about to do anything about their share. As Senator Marco Rubio put it earlier this month, ‘None of these proposals that liberals want us to impose on ourselves would do anything about the problem.’”

“Are Rubio and his allies right? The U.S. is responsible for about one-fifth of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. That’s a lot of carbonenough, seemingly, to make reductions worthwhile for their own sake.” And China is now the world’s most prodigious producer.

chinausacarbon More Rubio Climate Change Skepticism

But one of the Obama administration’s goals of setting emissions reductions standards is to encourage large polluters, like China, to follow.

According to Carol Davenport of the New York Times, Chinese officials will be paying close attention next week: “I’f the EPA standard is really stringent, that will make a difference in the domestic debate in China,’ Qi Ye, director of the Climate Policy Center at Tsinghua University, told Davenport. ‘It will have an impact.’”

  • moderatesunite

    China has already taken some encouraging actions in recent weeks, including committing to more than triple its solar capacity, and to stop building coal plants in many of its most populated provinces.

    • onnasinkinship

      The fine print: They have plans to keep building coal power plants for a long time, just not near such populated cities.

      • moderatesunite

        perhaps,but it’s no what most analysis suggests,
        The worst case analysis suggest that their rate of production of coal is falling and will fall dramatically compared to the previous few years. The best suggest that they will reach peak coal use within 2 years, and start the power source will start a slow decline after that.
        Most seem to think that the most likely scenario is a plateau of coal use about where it is now, while new power is overwhelmingly renewables, some nuclear etc.

        But it’s highly dependent on what the central Chinese government decides to do in the next couple years, and if we can have some influence on them to take more aggressive steps that’s all to the good.

        • Buzz Allnight

          They buy coal from us!!
          and it is going to go up because we can’t burn it here!

          • moderatesunite

            They might buy some from us for a bit, but the majority of their new power is already renewable. In time they won’t be burning any either

    • Buzz Allnight

      It is nothing they had very little solar anyhow and they use much more coal than we do

  • Buzz Allnight

    I have seen some really stupid ideas on line but this takes the cake!
    But one of the Obama administration’s goals of setting emissions reductions standards is to encourage large polluters, like China, to follow.
    Ya China wants to know what we think they should do?????

    • EricFromTheHill

      The only really stupid thing here is your assumption. To encourage in this case is to work economic incentives in a way that makes it more beneficial for China to adopt these standards. Since so much Chinese investment money is tied up in the U.S., businesses and government in China will be more impacted by reduction standards here than you would think. And, in some ways, American influence did survive the Bush-Cheney years, and the energy sector is one of those.

      • Buzz Allnight

        Very cool that a chimp can type
        still stupid though

        • EricFromTheHill

          Attacking someone’s avatar. Classy. So that’s what you do? Ignore someone’s points, cover your ears and continue to blab without paying attention to anything of substance? That’s not a discussion, debate, or argument. That is the textbook example of willful, belligerent ignorance. You’re of course entitled to your opinion, but I’m just as entitled to let you know that it’s worthless.

          Could you even locate China on a map? I feel it’s a legitimate question at this point.

          • Buzz Allnight

            I do not believe we have any influence on China.
            The Chinese people do not have any influence on their government either. The Chinese investment money in the US gives them influence on us, not the other way.

          • http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A Golbez

            “I do not believe we have any influence on China.”

            Lol, the world’s biggest super power. Do you have any reason to warrant this belief? Or do you tend to believe all manner of dumb things in competition to out-crazy your friends?

          • Buzz Allnight

            Used to be the world’s biggest super power.

          • http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A Golbez

            “Used to be the world’s biggest super power.”

            Do you have any reason to warrant this belief? Or do you tend to believe
            all manner of dumb things in
            competition to out-crazy your friends?

            This game is easy. Try reality for a spell though.

          • Buzz Allnight

            unfortunately our country is crumbling from within because of stupid people like you

          • http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A Golbez

            Well go ahead then, Mr. Smarty Pants. By what measure are we no longer the world’s biggest super power? Use that macho brain of yours to answer an intellectual challenge, rather than taking the easy road out and name-call. We can name-call all day, but it won’t make your argument for you.

          • http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A Golbez

            Were you ever able to find that measurement? ’cause all I hear are crickets.

          • EricFromTheHill

            Notice I said that Chinese investment money is tied up in the US, meaning they rely on American dollars for investment. If you knew even a little about the global economy right now, you’d know that China owns less US debt than either Europe, Japan or American treasury bondholders.

            We absolutely do have the ability to influence them, specifically in energy policy. What you “believe” is irrelevant and has no impact on reality.

            Enough time wasted here.

  • onnasinkinship

    Instead of following USA reductions, other countries will see less need to make changes, because they can fill the gap in CO2 that the USA creates.

    • moderatesunite

      that’s the most bullshit argument on this page.(saying something)

      Most of these countries have large groups within them that care about this issue and the environment in general.
      Europe, China etc. have taken steps even without the US having an energy or carbon policy, and before renewables became economically viable on their own. Our policy puts more pressure on these countries to adopt and strengthen their own.

    • Buzz Allnight

      That is correct, they feel entitled to do so already…

  • onnasinkinship

    The Left assumes that humans are the bulk of the CO2 emissions cause and increased warming, and Rubio rightly points out that this is not solid science, just a correlation that could change when more data over time is analyzed. Remember how certain science has been about diet and how often that changes, when new data comes in.

    • EricFromTheHill

      Over time, the data has actually shown that human activity is a huge contributor to global warming, and those correlations have been shown to be stronger. So, yes, “The Left” as you call it assumes this because it is what the evidence tells us. Both you and Rubio demonstrate the willful ignorance that is so dangerous here, and your “skepticism” is only a refusal to ignore the prevailing evidence. If 97 of 100 doctors told you that you have a treatable but life-threatening disease, would you forego treatment under the rationalization that those 97 might be wrong? What is the threshold for believing the truth?

      I know that in response you’ll probably throw out some of the same tired garbage. Something like “the earth always heats and cools on its own” (ask a geologist or climatologist, it’s not supposed to happen like *this*) or “humans don’t contribute that much to global warming” (this has been debunked by actual scientists so many times it’s nauseating) or, my favorite, pretending to understand science to tell us why science is wrong.

      Or maybe you have something new. Doubtless I’m sure we’ll all be amused.

      • Buzz Allnight

        you have no credibility because you know nothing about science at all.
        97 percent of scientists believe is totally bogus,
        they don’t and it does not matter if they did.

        At one point in history all scientists believed that everything in the universe revolved around the earth, then the sun, then the center of the milky way and then the realization that different objects rotate around different centers.
        “climate science ” is a fraud no matter how many people believe it….

    • moderatesunite

      Of all possible arguments you could make this is the weakest

      Humans have increased the amount of co2 in the atmosphere from 280 to 400 ppm(parts per million)

      how do we know? because we’ve been directly measuring it for decades.

      because it has never gone above 280 or so in 800,000 years of records until we started burning fossil fuels.

      http://milo-scientific.com/pers/essays/gwfig1.php

      • Buzz Allnight

        that is just incorrect

        • moderatesunite

          denying direct measurements?
          “sticks fingers in ears” “covers eyes”
          I don’t like what the thermometer is saying so it must be lying,
          I don’t like that 1+1=2, so I will believe it’s 3.

          That’s where that comment is.

    • Buzz Allnight

      I prefer if you would use the word stupid instead of left,
      close but not the same

Sign In

Forgot password?

Or

Subscribe

Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...